The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
business • revIew october 1969 FEDERA IL RESERVE BANK 0F DAL IL AS This publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org) \ '-.... ' .. contents water usage and supply 3 in the southwest . ... . .... .... .... .. . ....... . . district highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 wate,- usage a"d supply i" the southwest Patterns of water usage and supply in the Southwest present a problem of major importance for the future economic development of this generally arid region. Four states of the Eleventh Federal Reserve District - Arizona, New Mexico, Oklanoma, and Texas - receive less than the national average in precipitation and runoff. They also use more water on a per capita basis than the rest of the country, principally because of the large amount of water devoted to irrigated agriculture. With population growing faster in the Southwest than in the Nation as a whole and the demand for water already pressing on the limited supply, there are grounds for concern over how the region can either provide enough water to meet its requirements or adjust its economic structure to the shortage. The importance of Water to the economy of the southwestern states has been recognized increasingly. In fact, most groups - including those in agriculture, industry, business, and goverlll11ent - agree that Water is not only a vital resource for the future development and prosperity of the region but aiso a potentially limiting one. Given the " water income" of the Southwest, the region is not confronted with an overall shortage in the absolute sense. Instead, the problem is one of scarcity relative to demand; that is, the region has reached the point of a growing shortage of "inexpensive" water. This is especially true for irrigated agriculture, which accounts for the heaviest usage of the vital reSOurce. As water becomes more costly, the region will be required to economize in its use and possibly to adjust to higher production costs for industries using substantial amounts of water. Although the development of new sources of supply might be feasible, both within and outside the region, most agree that higher costs for water would be involved in such developments. Thus, it appears that efforts to alleviate the region's water problem must focus not only on ways of augmenting the total supply but also on a rational and balanced choice among the alternative uses of water competing for the available supply. Under conditions of scarcity, better management of water usage might well become imperative. This article examines recent patterns of water usage and the sources of supply that met these demands. The basic data are for 1965 , the most recent year for which comparable information is available for aU four states. 1 Some of the possible implications of water supplydemand relations in the Southwest are discussed, with consideration given to both current and longer-run aspects of the problem. Continuing rise in demand . .. Two concepts of demand for water are used in this article. Water withdrawal refers to the volume of water diverted from storage or flow for purposes of performing some economic function - for example, water withdrawn for industrial use. Water consumption refers to water withdrawn from storage or flow but not discharged or available for further use. As compared with water withdrawal, consumption represents a more serious demand on the water resources of a region since it includes 1 C. Richard Murray, Estimated Use of Water ill the Ullited States, 1965, Geological Survey Circular 556 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, 1968). business review/october 1969 3 WATER WITHDRAWAL IN 1965, BY TYPE OF USE WATER WITHDRAWAL AND CONSUMPTION, TOTAL AND PER CAPITA, IN 1965 TOTAL (I n billions of gallons per day) With · Con· drawal sumption" Area PER CAPITA (In gallons per d ay) With · Con· drawal sumption" Arizona . . New Mexico Okl ahom a Texas . .... 6.3 3.0 1.3 124.0 4.3 2.1 .5 15.0 4,000 3,000 480 '2,300 2,730 2,071 188 1,416 Total United States ... 34.6 311.0 21.9 98.0 2,214 1,600 1,399 499 . 1 Include s saline water. " Includes irrigation conveyance losses. NOTE. - Details may not add to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: Estimated Use of Water in the United States, 1965. (In millions of gallons per day) Rura l uses Area Public supp lies Iniga· tion Se lf· supplied industri a l water uses All Arizon a New M exi co . Oklahoma Texas 20 70 70 170 220 110 230 1,200 5,900 2,700 370 14,000 140 100 620 ' 9,000 6,300 3,00 0 1,300 124,OQQ Total United States 330 1,760 22,970 ' 9,860 '34,600 .. 4,000 23,600 120,000 170,000 311,000 .. 1 Includes 4.6 billion gallons of saline water. Other figureS in table, except those for the United States as a whole, refer to freshwater. "losses" due to evaporation, transpiration, human and animal intake, and incorporation into products. The economic structure and geographical characteristics of a region weigh heavily, of course, in determining the prevailing patterns of water withdrawal and consumption. In some regions, especially where concentrations of industrial plants have been developed along major rivers, heavy water withdrawals can be accompanied by low rates of actual water consumption. As water is withdrawn, used, and then returned to the streamflow, it becomes available for use by others. Although there may be a deterioration in the quality of the water as it flows downstream (as often happens) , the total amount of the flow may be diminished very little. R ates of water withdrawal are higher for the Southwest than for the Nation . Moreover, users in the four southwestern states actually consume almost two-thirds of the total volume of water withdrawn, a pattern that contrasts sharply with the consumption ratio of slightly less than a third for the country as a whole. In 1965, daily withdrawal of water in the four southwestern states averaged 2,214 gallons per capita, as compared with the national average of 1,600 gallons. 2 Daily consumption in the Southwest averaged 1,399 gallons per capita, whereas in the Nation the rate of consumption was less than 500 gallons. In recent years, water usage has expanded faster in the Southwest than in the Nation, reflecting not only the increasing requirements of a growing population but also a rising rate of per capita use. For example, in the Southwest, where population increased 10 percent between 1960 and 1965, average daily withdrawal increased 29 percent. Nationwide, withdrawalS rose 15 percent, while population rose about 8 percent. This rapid expansion in the region's 2 The measure of water withdrawal per capita, as used in this article, contrasts sharply with personal use of water, Actually, per capita requirements for personal use in the southwestern states, as in the Nation as a whole, average less than 150 gallons of water per day. WATER CONSUMPTION IN 1965, BY TYPE OF USE WATER SUPPLY SOURCES IN 1965 Four Southwestern States (In billions of g allons per day) Millions of gallons consumed per day Type of use Rural uses . . . . . , ... , .... . Pub lic supplies , . . .... , . Self·supplied industria l water . . . . . . . . Irrigation' . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All uses 1 ..... ,., . . Percent of total consumption 300 800 1.4 3.6 800 20,000 3.6 91.3 21,900 100.0 Inc l udes conveyance losses. Ground· water Surface water Total withdrawal Arizona .... . . . .... . . New Mexico ..... Oklahoma .. , . , ... . . . Texas . . .. . ... .. . . .. . 4. 2 1.4 .4 13.0 2.1 1.6 .9 ' 11.0 Total .. ... . .. . . .. . United States , . . ... 6.3 3.0 1.3 ' 24.0 19.0 61.0 15.6 250.0 34.6 311.0 Area 1 Includes 4.6 bi ll ion gallons of saline w ater. demand for water continues a trend that has been apparent since comparative data on state and regional usage have been reported. 1 percent of the withdrawaL As urbanization continues and public supplies extend into new areas, this proportion will become even smaller. The overwhelming preponderance of water demand in the four southwestern states is for either irrigation or industrial purposes. Of the 34.6 billion gallons withdrawn daily in 1965, 66 percent went for irrigation and 28 percent for industrial uses. The industrial group consists of nonagricultural users that have their Own water systems and, therefore, are not dependent on public systems. Of industry in the Southwest, chemical and petroleum processing plants and electric generating plants have the largest intake requirements. Nearly all the water withdrawn in these states was freshwater, except in Texas, where industry used 4.6 billion gallons of seawater a day in 1965. In terms of freshwater alone, agriculture used 76 percent of the 30 biUion gallons withdrawn in the Southwest every day, industry 17 percent, public systems 6 percent, and rural users 1 percent. While water to meet public and rural needs is crucial to the users, these two categories are of relatively minor importance. Only 5 percent of the water withdrawn in 1965 passed through the public supply systems furnishing water to households, businesses, governments, and industries without their own water systems. Rural Users, apart from users in the extremely important irrigation category, accounted for only Although the overall withdrawal rate was more than a third higher for the region than for the Nation, the four southwestern states withdrew water for purposes other than irrigated agriculture at rates below the national average. Without irrigation, the Southwest had an average per capita daily withdrawal of 744 gallons per day - 23 percent less than the national average of 972 gallons per day. Agriculture accounted for more than 90 percent of the water consumed in the Southwest in 1965 . The rest of the 21.9 billion gallons con- business review/o ctober 1969 5 sumed daily was divided among users that discharged much of their water intake back into the supply. In contrast to these other users, agriculture actually consumed 87 percent of the water it used - either through evaporation (which includes conveyance losses) or by transpiration into plants and soil. The result was a ratio of consumption to withdrawal in 1965 that was nearly twice as high in the Southwest as in the Nation overall. ... and further pressure on supplies Only 45 percent of the water withdrawn in the Southwest in 1965 was surface water. Almost all the rest came from underground sources. This is in sharp contrast to the Nation as a whole, which took 80 percent of its water from surface sources. The difference is due, of course, to the fundamentally different rainfall and streamflow conditions in the Southwest. All essentially arid, the four southwestern states lie in three of the Nation's main waterusing regions - the Western Gulf Region and the Colorado and Upper Arkansas River Basins. Together, these regions account for nearly a fourth of the land mass of the continental United States. But they receive only 6.5 percent of the average annual runoff of surface water (the portion of precipitation that finally reaches streams) . With its supply of surface water smaller than average and its demand for water greater than in most other parts of the country, the Southwest has turned increasingly to underground sources. Whereas surface water represents a supply that will be renewed in time - even though the rate of renewal often fluctuates widely about normal annual or seasonal patterns - groundwater represents an accumulated stock. The stock can be replenished, at least in part, either by rainwater seeping down through the ground surface or by water flowing from higher elevations through permeable formations serving as subterranean aqueducts. The 6 amount of underground recharge depends on local conditions. In some areas, the recharge is only a very small part of the total stock. If it is pumped out faster than the stock is recharged, the water is considered "mined." Prolonged mining invariably lowers the water table (the upper limit of saturated ground), and wells have to be drilled deeper to reach a steady supply.s Much of the Southwest has been heavily mined. In the High Plains of Texas, for example, where wells have been pumped many years for irrigation, the water table at most wells has been declining steadily. An average decline of 3.5 feet a year is common, and some declines have been more than 8 feet a year. (Some wells need be sunk only about 65 feet. Others go down as much as 325 feet.) Declines for short periods are not serious. But after 5 or 10 years, a steady decline in the water table means old wells are no longer productive and that new, deeper wells must be sunk. Continued mining eventually depletes the available stock, either technically or economically: technically, if the stock is completely exhausted; economically, if the water table falls so low that the cost of water retrieval is too high to be profitable. Higher costs to farmers .. . A myriad of practices rooted in law and history keep the price system from directly affecting most water users. Users are affected, nevertheless, because prices are rising throughout the Southwest, if only implicitly. As water tables fall, the cost of deeper wells and larger pumps pushes up the price of groundwater. Moreover, H Water-well drilling is a national industry with an annual production value of between half and threequarters of a billion dollars. The value of water-well drilling in the four southwestern states is probably close to $50 million a year, according to Gerald Meyer and G. G. Wyrick, R egional Trends in Water-Well Drilling in th e Ullited States, Geological Survey Circular 533 (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, 1966). with the better locations for surface storage already taken, additional efforts in that direction involve higher unit costs of water. As demand for water continues to put pressure on the available supply, the heaviest impact is on irrigated agriculture. Slightly more than three-fourths of the irrigation water in the four states came from underground sources in 1965 - 17.5 billion gallons a day. With such a comparatively high use rate, irrigated agriculture contributes heavily to the decline in water tables and bears much of the brunt of rising prices. Irrigated agriculture always implies a fundamental conflict. Where rainfall is plentiful, there is little or no need for irrigation. Where rainfall is sparse, extensive agricultural development depends on irrigation - which usually means water from ground sources. Recourse to groundwater offers no more than a temporary solution to the problem, however, since extensive use of groundwater in areas of scarce rainfall and only limited recharge causes water tables to drop. In the long run, the same groundwater supplies that allowed irrigated agriculture to prosper in an arid environment also cause new difficulties. As water tables drop, costs of water inputs rise, profit margins narrow, and low-return crops are produced increasingly by dryland methods, if at all. The Southwest has a mixed system of agriculture. Assuming no massive future transfer of water, such as has been proposed in the Texas Water Plan, irrigation is bound to playa smaller part in southwestern agriculture. 1 The 1 The Texas Water Plan includes proposals for Water transfers within the State, as well as for water importation into Texas and New Mexico. A bond iSsue to implement the plan was defeated in August. Arizona has long considered a water transfer plan, the Central Arizo na Project, to divert Colorado River Water to arid portions of the State, particularly to farml and. The Arizona proposal was finally authorized by Congress in September 1968, but no funds were appropriated. acreage still irrigated would be dependent on surface water plus groundwater pumped at rates consistent with a fairly stable water table. The increased cost of water that caused a reduction in irrigated acreage would also dictate that only high-return crops be grown under irrigation. Large-scale irrigation is a fairly recent development in the Southwest, dating largely from the 1940's. In Texas, for example, only about 1 million acres were under irrigation at the end of World War II. By the late 1950's, the number of irrigated acres had increased to more than 6 million. Although expansion has slowed in tlle 1960's, irrigated acreage had swelled to 8 million by 1964, the last year of an extensive inventory of Texas irrigation. G Irrigated acreage has also increased elsewhere in the Southwest, although recent studies indicate irrigated acreage will decline in Arizona and Texas in the future, given existing water supplies. a It has been estimated th at, even with new water supplies, irrigated acreage in Texas would probably increase less than 20 percent over the 1965 level- to total about 9.4 million acres. Diminishing groundwater supplies are relied on so heavily that even successful implementation of water transfer plans over the next 50 years might do little more than provide a substitute source of supply. 5 Paul T. GiUett and I. G. Janca, Inventory at Texas Irrigation, 1958 and 1964, Texas Water Commission BuIJetin 6515 (Austin, Texas: Texas Water Commission, June 1965). G Fred A. Schmer, Warren L. Trock, and Glen L. Wistrand, The Impact at Different Levels at Water Development all Texas Agriculture, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Report MP-911 (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University, March 1969); Harold M. Stults, "Predicting Farmer Response to a Falling Water Table: An Arizona Case Study" (Ph. D. dissertation, The University of Arizona, 1967); and WiUiam E. Martin, Thomas G. Burdak, and Robert A. Young, "Projecting Hydrologic and Economic Interrelationships in Groundwater Basin Management" (Paper presented at the International Conference on Arid Lands in a Changing World, Tucson, Arizona, June 3, 1969). business review/october 1969 7 · .. and to others The supply problem seems far less serious for nonagricultural users in the Southwest, and for several reasons. Probably the most important is the fact that the per capita withdrawal rate of these users is lower than the national withdrawal rate. But nonagricultural users are also better situated than agricultural users to absorb higher prices of water. An increase in the price of water would raise the cost of living for families and the cost of production for businesses, but water is only one budget item for these users and, for most of them, a relatively small one. The ability of these users to pay higher prices (if necessary) also means that sources of water currently neglected because of their high costs could become economical. Nonagricultural users have the further advantage of actually consuming very little of the water they take in. This means that, because the return flow from these users is fairly large, their water intake can increase faster than new supplies of water. Such a development depends, of course, not only on the accessibility of the discharged water to successive users but also on its being of an acceptable quality. Reprocessed sewage offers some promise as a source of water for irrigation and industrial purposes. The amount recovered is still a negligible part of the total, but as water supplies become more scarce relative to demand, there will probably be a sharp upsurge in the reuse of water. Although no American city now recycles waste water for drinking purposes, some treatment systems, such as the one in Tahoe, California, already are producing water of potable quality. It might be possible for some users to reduce their intake requirements through the use of recirculation systems that use the same water several times. Prospects are particularly promising in connection with the recirculation of water used as a coolant. 8 Nonagricultural users are also favored by being less dependent on groundwater. Surface water has the advantage not only of being renewable but also of being increased by construction of additional reservoirs. Texas and Oklahoma still have many possible sites for developing surface water. The supply can, of course, be burdened by evaporation from the surfaces of reservoirs, but experiments are being conducted to detelmine whether this loss can be reduced. Surface water includes an almost limitless supply of salt water along the Gulf Coast. Since saline water cannot be used for irrigation or most other purposes, there is a tendency to ignore possibilities for using it. But with the development of noncorrosive alloys, the potential for using salt water as an industrial coolant is greatly increased. When saline water can be used without prior treatment, it is a plentiful and inexpensive substitute for freshwater. Water usage in the Southwest has changed since 1965 - at least in magnitude - but basic patterns of usage have not. Population and industry have continued to grow in aU four states, further increasing demands for water. Irrigated agriculture has also continued to groW, but not as rapidly as before. Irrigation has increased in Texas and Oklahoma, but there are indications that irrigated acreage has remained fairly stable in Arizona and New Mexico. While there are probably several means of easing water shortages for nonagricultural users, irrigated agriculture must, by definition, have a dependabJe source of water to exist. Without major new water supplies in the Southwest, there are apt to be reductions in irrigated acreage. This does not necessarily mean a reduction in the region's agriculture, however. A decline in irrigated falming might be accompanied, at least to some extent, by an increase in dryland farming and better management of the acreS that are irrigated. Projections developed by researchers at Texas A&M University, for example, indicate that, by 1980, production of nearly all the crops in Texas will expand beyond recent levels, even without further development of water supplies. Some losses in production are expected for cotton and oil crops, but they are not large. Similar patterns are found in projections to the year 2000. Output of all crops expands but under growing conditions featuring a shift from irrigated farming.7 7 Schmer, Trock, and Wistrand, The Impact of Different L evels of Wat er D e velopm ent on Texas A griculture, pp. 26-33 . These projections indicate the response farmers are most apt to make to limitations imposed by water supplies. With no additional supplies of water, agricultural output will probably still increase at modest rates and internal adjustments are apt to cause more acres to be farmed overall but fewer to be irrigated. According to this pattern, agriculture would not begin an absolute decline without new water supplies. Rather, it would decline relative to other activities - most of which would probably be increasing rapidly while agriculture remained fairly constant. LEONARD G. BOWE R district highlights The Texas industrial production index continues to indicate strength in the State's economy. The preliminary seasonally adjusted index for August was 178.3 percent of the 1957-59 base - up 0.8 percent from the upward adjusted figure for july. Manufacturing and mining were up in August. Utilities were unChanged. Within the manufacturing sector, production of nondurable goods was virtually unChanged, while durable goods production rose 1.1 percent. The greatest single advance in durable goods was in transportation equipment. Chemical and allied products made the strongest showing among nondurable goods. After allowance for seasonal influences, production of crude oil rose 2 percent in August, providing the major strength to the mining sector. Compared with August 1968, the Texas industrial production index was up 7.2 percent. Utilities advanced 16 percent over a year earlier, mainly on the strength of increased output of electricity. Total manufacturing rose 8.3 percent, with durable goods stronger than nondurable goods. Except for primary metals and textiles, every category of manufacturing increased its output over the same month a year earlier. Mining was up 2.4 percent, with natural gas the leading component. Production of crude petroleum was up 1.7 percent. Total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in the five southwestern states edged upward in August - in contrast to the nOlmal business review /october 1969 9 seasonal decline. Manufacturing employment accounted for most of the increase, although nonmanufacturing employment also rose. Except for government and mining, all categories of employment showed increases over their July levels. Government employment edged downward, following its usual seasonal pattern. Mining employment also declined. Nonagricultural employment in these five states was up 4.1 percent from August of last year. Manufacturing increased its employment 4.0 percent, and nonmanufacturing employment increased 4.1 percent, both about in line with the total. The strongest components were finance and services, both of which were up 5.8 percent from August 1968. The smallest year-to-year percentage increases were in mining and construction. Registrations of new passenger automobiles in Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, and San Antonio were 16 percent lower in August than in JUly. New car registrations were also significantly lower than in August 1968. Through August, cumulative registrations in these four centers were 5 percent lower than in the first 8 montlls of last year; only Dallas showed an increase over last year. Department store sales in the Eleventh District were 4 percent higher for the 4 weeks ended September 27, 1969, than for the comparable period last year. As of that date, cumulative sales were 8 percent higher than for the corresponding period last year. Daily average crude oil production in the four producing states of the Eleventh District declined slightly in August. The decline - a drop of 0.6 percent - followed a 3.0-percent decline in JUly. The largest decrease was in Texas, where production slipped 1.1 percent. Although production fell in all four states during August, output was 1.3 percent higher than 10 a year before. Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas all showed increases over August 1968; Oklahoma showed a decrease. Nationally, crude production also showed a slight monthto-month decline in August and a modest yearto-year increase. But both changes were less than 1 percent. The August oil allowable in Texas was 53.1 percent of the Maximum Efficient Rate of production - in sharp contrast to the June high of 63.5 percent. The Texas allowable was further lowered to 52.1 percent for September but, because of increased demand, was raised to 53.7 percent for October. The· allowable in Louisiana has been maintained at 44 percent since July. Before Hurricane Camille, the allowable for Louisiana had been lowered to 43 percent for September, but after the hurricane and the assessment of damages to production and refining facilities, it was restored to 44 percent. The allowable for northwestern New Mexico was unchanged for October. For southeastern New Mexico, however, it was raised froOl the level for August and September. The Economic Development Administration invested $28.7 million in the five states of the Eleventh District in the fiscal year ended June 30. These Federal funds were used on 131 development projects designed to help stimulate job opportunities in areas with persistently high unemployment and low family incomes. Of this amount, $3, 706,000 was spent on 12 projects in Arizona, $388,000 on 12 projects in Louisiana, $5,205,000 on 24 projects in New Mexico, $7,169,000 on 34 projects in Oklahoma, and $12,235,000 on 49 projects in Texas. All the projects were originated in the communities receiving the funds. The program provides loans and grants to help communities attract industry. Business loans are also made to help expand a comOl Unity's industrial and commercial base. ThiS I I I I help, which includes technical assistance and aid in planning projects, will be provided again this year. Proposals for development projects are processed through the Administration's area office in Austin. A dry, hot summer has cut cotton prospects in the Eleventh District. Production in the five southwestern states is expected to total nearly 5.1 million bales. This estimate, based on conditions as of September 1, is 3 percent less than actual production last year but 27 percent higher than in 1967. In Texas, the cotton crop is estimated to total about 3.4 million bales. Although 24 percent greater than the 1967 crop, the estimated Texas output is 3 percent less than the 1968 crop. Yields are expected to average 341 pounds of lint per acre this year, compared with 410 pounds last year. Production of grain sorghum in District states is expected to total about 394 million bushels, 2 percent less than last year. Rice output is estimated to be 19 percent lower than in 1968. Adverse weather conditions in the spring and late summer are major factors contributing to lower rice prospects. Range conditions have improved in most areas of the Southwest with recent rains. On September 1, there were more than 1.3 million head of cattle and calves on feed in Texas for the slaughter market. That was 54 percent more than a year earlier. August placements in Texas totaled 275,000 head. There were 33 percent more cattle and calves on feed in Arizona than a year earlier. By contrast, the increase for the six largest cattle feeding states was 14 percent. Texas farmers and ranchers received fractionally lower prices for their products in August than in July but 1 percent higher prices than in August 1968. In the first 8 months of this year, Texas farmers and ranchers received prices averaging 7 percent higher than for the same months a year before. This increase was due largely to nSlllg prices of livestock and livestock products. These prices increased 17 percent. On the other hand, average prices of crops declined 4 percent. Through July, cash receipts from farm marketing.s in District states were 11 percent more than for the first 7 months of last year. Live~tock re~eipts increased 14 percent, and crop lIlcome mcreased 5 percent. All major balance sheet items at weekly reporting banks in the Eleventh District declined in the 4 weeks ended September 10. Primarily the declines reflected seasonal factors, a re~ duced availability of funds, and a further runoff in time deposits. Loans adjusted decreased $66 million, compared with a decline of $154 million in the previous reporting period but an increase of $55 million in the same period a year earlier. Business loans were $26 million lower than in the previous period, and loans to nonbank financial institutions were $44 million lower. Loans sold under repurchase agreements showed a sizable decline. Agricultural and real estate loans declined slightly. Only consumer loans showed an increase, and it was small. Total investments continued to decline, dropping $13 million. A reduction of $42 million in holdings of U.S. Government securities with matuljities of 5 years or more and a reduction of $48 million in holdings of obligations of states and political subdivisions were only partially offset by increased holdings of short-term Governments and other bonds, stocks, and securities. Total investments were down $4 million in the corresponding period of 1968. On the liability side of the balance sheet total demand deposits decreased $17 million ~ in sharp contrast to a $112 million increase a year earlier. Gains in interbank and foreign deposits were more than offset by declines in de- business review/october 1969 11 mand deposits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations, of states and political subdivisions, and of the U.S. Government. Total time and savings deposits declined $64 million, continuing the downward trend of recent months. In the corresponding period a year ago, total time and savings deposits were down $21 million. Within this category, de- posits of individuals, partnerships, and corporations decreased $44 million during the 4 weeks ended September 10 and deposits of states and political subdivisions decreased $20 million. Negotiable certificates of deposit in denominations of $100,000 or more continued to decline, registering a $56 million decrease in the 4-week period. There was a decline of $4 l11illion in the corresponding period a year ago. I ) ) ) new 12 The Lone Oak State Bank, Lone Oak, Texas, a nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, August 28,1969. The officers are: F. C. Montgomery, Chairman of the Board (Inactive); J. J. Lee, President; F. W. Abbott, Vice President (Inactive); and Gaye Hooten, Cashier. The Reagan State Bank, Big Lake, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in the territory served by the Head Office of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, September 2, 1969. The officers are: Frank Junell, Chairman of the Board; Ernest O'Hearn, Jr., President; Robbie E. Ferguson, Vice President and Cashier; Mrs. Iva Jean Davis, Assistant Cashier; and Mrs. Virginia Green, Assistant Cashier. The First State Bank, Aransas Pass, Texas, an insured nonmember bank located in the territory served by the San Antonio Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, was added to the Par List on its opening date, September 8, 1969. The officers are: James T. Denton, Jr., President; J. E. Powell, Executive Vice President; Mrs. Mary K. Fortner, Vice President and Cashier; Henry Patton, Vice President; Conway O. McKenzie, Vice President; Mrs. Mary Beth Coleman, Assistant Cashier; and Mrs. Jewell Chism, Assistant Cashier. - .,. STATISTICAL SUPPLEMENT to the BUSINESS REVIEW October 1969 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS RESERVE POSITIONS OF MEMBER BANKS CONDITION STATISTICS OF WEEKLY REPORTING COMMERCIAL BANKS Eleventh Federal Reserve District Eleventh Federal Reserve District (Avera ges of dail y flgur.s. In thousands of dollars) - (In thousands of dollars) 5 weeks e nd e d Aug. 6,1969 4 weeks e nd e d Sept. 3, 1969 728,693 677,185 51,508 73 1,203 -2,510 22,180 -24,690 732,494 682,173 50,321 73 1,907 587 54,175 -53,588 720,918 670,071 50,847 715,179 5,739 10,286 -4,547 773,5 12 593,228 180,284 744,742 28,770 32,130 -3,360 773,337 596,174 177,163 748,391 24,946 24,531 415 708,047 535,110 172,937 674,339 33,708 17,339 16,369 1,502,2 05 1,270,413 231,792 1,475,945 26,260 54,310 -28,050 1,505,831 1,278,347 227,484 1,480,298 25,533 78,706 -53,173 1,428,965 1,205,181 223,784 1,389,518 39,447 27,625 11,822 4 weeks en d e d Item Sept. 24, 1969 Aug. 27, 1969 Sept. 25, 1968' ASSETS Iderol funds so ld and securities purchased under agreements to resell . •••• . •• • ••••••••• "her loans and discounts, gross •...•.....••.... Commercial and industrial loans •••.• .. •.•. .•• Agricultural loons, excluding CCC certiflcates of interest .••.....•..••••....• Loans to brokers and dealers for 439,160 6,070,315 428,425 } 6,172,649 6,035,955 3,002,569 3,000,179 2,757,522 108,033 110,228 89,824 555 43,659 556 44,876 186,107 21,478 157 367,040 70 376,088 573 351,963 purchasing or carrying: U.S. Government securities •••.•..•.•...•.• Othe r sec u rities • •... ..•.. . .•.••.• . .•••.. Other loans for purchasing or carrying: U.S. Government securities •••..••.••.•••.• Other securities • •• . .. . .. .•.. •••• ... . .... loans to nonbank Anencial institutions: Soles Anance, personal finance, factors, and other business credit companies ••. •. •• Other ....... .. ..... . ...... ... .. . .... .. Rea I estate loons .•••.•.•....•.••...•.••..• Loo ns to domestic commercial bon ks •••••••.•.• Loons to foreign bonks .•. •.. ... .• . ••......• Consumer instalment loons ••••.••.•.•••.•..•• Loons to foreign governments, ofAciol institutions, central bonks, international institutions •••••••••••••• ••.• • • .••••••..• Other loans ••••••••••••••••••••.•••••.••• ::tal investments ••.•••.•••.••••••.••.••••••• Total U.S . Govern ment securities ••• .••.•• ••••• Treasury bills •.••.••..•••.••..•••.••••.. Treasury certificates of indebtedness • ••••••• Treasury notes and U.S. Governme nt bonds maturing: Within 1 yeor •• • ..•..•• ••. .•. ••.••• .. 1 yeo r to 5 years ••••••..••.••••••.••. After 5 years ... ...................... Obliga tions of states and polit ical sub d ivisions: Ta x warrants and short-term not es and bills .. All ather ......... .. ............. ....... Other bonds, corporate stoc ks, and securities: Certiflcates representing participations in Federal a ge nc y loans ••• .• • .•• •.. ..• • .. All ather (including corporate stocks) .•• ••..• sh items in proc ess of collection .•••..•••.• •.• it serves with Federal Reserve Bonk ••••.•• ••••.. [ rrency and coin •.••.•••.•.••.•....••.•.•.. "lances with banks in the Unit ed States •.•••. .. . [ la nces with bonks in for eig n countries ••••..•.. :>t her assets (including investments in subsi diaries Total reserves he ld •••.• • . •••.. With Federal Reserve Bonk ••.• Currency and coin •.••• .• •••. Required reserves .•...•• ..•• . • Excess reserves ••••••..• • •••.• Borrowings • ••..• . ..••.....•.. Free reserves •..•......••..•.. COUNTRY 8ANKS Total reserves hel d ••.• .. .•. . •. With Federal Reserve Bonk ••.• Curren cy and coin .......•..• Required reserves •.•• . •• .. ...• Excess reserves • .• • .. .. ••• •• .. Borrowings •••..•....•..• •... . Free reserves •..•...••..••..•• All MEM8ER 8ANKS With Federal Reserve 8onk .•.. 138,076 378,347 623,723 9,014 8,635 700,2 13 142, 152 340,211 581,487 473,224 5,91, 606,941 0 667,157 2,450,706 0 645,950 2,507,948 0 615,250 2,533,273 966,171 60,992 0 1,110,631 30,490 0 126,054 625,644 144,421 131,394 617,470 156,31 5 203,547 597,761 278,833 32,976 1,357,454 24,256 1,422,645 29,762 1,200,33 9 921,727 25,608 0 ---- Curre ncy and coin .....•.•... Required reserves ••........•.. Excess reserves •••...•..•.••.• Borrowings • . .•..•..••..•.•••. Free reserves • .•...••.••..• ••• CONDITION OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS lin thousands of dollars) 68,101 70,448 1,132,467 744,238 88,729 498,854 7,105 22,803 72,073 1,050,302 647,188 88,211 464,371 5,912 430,814 413,783 11 ,642,095 127,221 65,320 968,782 787,908 85,384 502,282 4,845 Toto l gold certiflcate rese rv es ••• ••••. . .. •••• Disco un ts for member bonks ••.•.•.••.•••••• Othe r discounts and advances •• • ..•. •••..•• U.S. Governmen t securities ••...•.•...•••.•. Total ea rning a sse ts ••••.....••...••..•...• Member bonk reserve d e p osits • •••• •.. .. ..•. Federal Reserve notes in actual circulation ••.•• 316,994 53,325 386,715 2,295,623 2,319,198 1,2 83,292 1,665,728 2,322,962 2,376,287 1,175,528 1,652,265 2, 198,030 2,227,040 1,228,837 1,502,818 o o 29,OI~ CONDITION STATISTICS OF ALL MEMBER BANKS Eleve nth Federa l Reserve District 9,489,707 Total demand d e posits •• .•••• .•..• •. •.• •... Individuals, partnerships, and corporations ••.• States and political subdivisions •••.••.•••.. U.S . Government ••••••••••••••••..••..•. 5,944,635 4,114,780 281,566 263,246 1,179,3 10 5,720,724 4,000,539 326,094 127,987 1,148,018 3,212 27,000 75,521 3,409,545 3,866 23,426 90,794 3,465,678 9,374 21,431 72,458 3,778,772 957,277 1,822,216 594,937 8,540 19,685 957,323 1,848,144 623,Q63 8,735 22,023 1,045,983 2,057,084 635,631 12,835 22,539 5,500 1,390 6,000 390 4,500 200 ---5,710,935 3,899,020 240,859 267,740 1,200,053 (In millions of dollars) = Aug. 27, 1969 Jul y 30, 1969 Aug . 28, 1968 Loans and di scounts, gross l • •• •• • ••• • ••••• U.S. Gov ernm en t obligations •••• .... .••.•• Other sec urities .• . • .. •• .. •• .•.•. • .. • .• • Reserves with Federal Reserve Bank .•.• • .•. Cash in vault •. ..••...• ... •.••. . •..••. . Balances with banks in the Un ite d States •. . • Balances with banks in for e ign countries e .... Cash items in process of collection . •••..•.. Other ossets e •.•..•......•.. . ••..•.••.. 11,431 2,152 3,135 1,176 265 1,178 8 1,198 775 11,388 2,164 3,136 1,123 259 1,154 9 1,170 753 10,191 2,380 2,814 1,165 252 1,12j TOTAL ASSETse .................... . 21,318 21,156 1,468 8,843 7,323 1,441 8,707 7,388 1,419 8,282 7,233 17,634 t,090 17,536 1,1 22 800 1,698 16,93 4 527 329 1,6 13 Ite m --------------------~----------------------- ASSETS 905,503 183,392 327,124 11 8,003 11,606 962,580 TOT Al LIABILITIES, RESERVES, AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS .................. 11 ,862,388 798,045 } 246,719 322,031 117,778 11,560 959,560 11 ,642,D95 651,949 240,394 105,52 1 llA81l1TIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS De mand depaslts of banks •. .... •..•.•.•• Other d em and d e posits .... . . .. ... .. . ... . Time d eposits • •. . .. .. •.••••... . •••..••. 926,036 Total d epos its .. ••.......•.•......•.. Borrowings .....................••..•.. Other liabilities e • ... •..•• .... . • . •.. .. •. Total capital accounts e .... ••• 1• • • • • • • • • • • 11 413607 TOTAL liABILITIES AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTSe •..........•......• .. • n.a. Beca use of format revisions as of July 2,1969, earlier data are not full y comparable. n.a . - Not available. 1 470,428 23,575 358,484 9,186,402 Foreign: Governments, ofAcial institutions, central banks, international institutions •• • ••• • .. Commercial bon ks ..•....••..••...••.•• ~ederol funds purchased and securities sol d under agreements to repurcha se •• .• •.....••• ~hher liab ilities for borrowed money .•.•.....••. p ther liab HUies •. . .•..•. . ••...••...••..•..•• seserves on loan s ... . •.• . ...• ... •••.•.. • . . .• l eserves on se curities .••......•..••..•...•.•• fatal capital accounts •..•..•...•...••.•...••. Se pt. 25, 1968 ---- 9,354,180 Banks in the United States .•.•.• • " ••••.••• Aug. 27, 1969 11 ,4 13,607 atal deposits .............................. Foreign: Governmen ts, ofAcial institutions, cen tral banks, intern ational instit ution s ••• •••• . • Commercial banks • •.•• .• ••••• • . .. •• • •. Ce rtiAed and offlcers' checks, etc ........... Total time and savings d e posits .•....••..•.•• Individuals, partnerships, and corporations: Savings d eposits • • ••..•...•. .. ••..•..• Other time deposits ••....••..•••.•••..• States and political sub divisions • •.• • .•••.•• U.S. Government (including postal savings) ••• Sept. 24, 1969 Ite m lIA81l1TIES 8ank s in the Unite d States .... . . .. ......... Sept. 4, 1969 RESERVE CITY 8ANKS Total rese rves held ••••.•.•.. .. 134,057 380,289 637,044 11,061 8,880 709,814 TOTAL ASSETS .... ....... .... .. ........ 11 ,862,388 not consolidated) . .•• . •.••••.. •... ••.••••.• Item 892 1,702 1,002 463 - .l.Y..4~ 19403 =-- ------------------------------------------------------------------Before Jul y 2, 1969, this item wa s published on a not bas is. 1 e - Estimat ed. BANK DEBITS, END-Of-MONTH DEPOSITS, AND DEPOSIT TURNOVER (Dollar amounts in thousands, seaso nall y adju sted) DE61TS TO DEMAN D DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS ' DEMAND DEPOSITS ' Percen t change ~ 8 month s, (Annual-rate Standard met ropolitan bo.I.) statistical oreo Annual rate of turnover August 1969 from August 1969 July 1969 1968 1969 from 1968 August ARIZONA, Tucson ... • . .......•........•..•.... . ..... $ 5,342,784 2,5 11,432 LOUISIANA, Monroe .••.............•............... 7,967,172 Shr eve port ......•. . ..................... 674,620 NEW MEXI CO, Roswell' ••... .. .. . . •...•• .. ....•. ···· 1,990,032 TEXAS, Abilene •••••.. . ...................••.. . ..... 5,429,508 Amarillo ...... . . ...... ............ • · ··· ···· . 8,393,796 Austin ........ . . . . ....... . ...... ··•·· ······ . 5,795,652 Beaumont-Port Arthu r- O range .•••.. . ....... .. .. 1,1 31,372 Brownsvill e- Harling en-San Benito . . . . . ..•....••. . 4,364,880 Corpus Christi.. . ............ . ................ 359,496 Co rsicana 2 •••• • . .•.•••• •.• ••.••••••• •• . •• • •• 104,508,468 Dallas •. ••...... .. .•...••....•.. . • ··• · •• · ·· . 6,49 1,266 EI Paso •• . ......•........•.....••... ·· ··· · ·· 20,557,466 For t Worth ............. . .. . . . ......... · · ···· 2,570,688 Galveston-Texas Cit y .......•........ . . ..... ·· 92,260,092 Hou ston . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .... ..... . ..... . ... 818,260 Lare do . ....... . ....... .... ... . · •···· · ····· . 4,650,240 Lubbock ... .. . . .............• . .•.. . •........ 1,277,784 McAllen· Pharr-Edinburg •. •.....• •....•..•. • .. .. 1,842,024 Mi dland . . . ....•..••.........•.• · ·· •·• ···•· . 1,617,360 Od ess a .. . .. ...... .. .. . .......... . ···· ····· . 1,1 05,848 Son Ang elo •• • ....•.......•.... ...... .•.••.. 15,627,840 San Anton io .... . .... ........................ 1,023,492 Sh er man-D enison . ................. . ....... . . . 1,457,880 Texa rkana (T exas-Arka nsas ) .••. ........ . .. , .... 2,145,060 Tyler .... .... .. ....... .. .. .... ...... ···· .. · • 2,79 1,920 Waco •........ . ... .. . ...... . ·.····· ..... . .. 2,225,328 Wichita Falls ••..• ••. ....••• .. ......•.... . ••• -6 -4 - 11 -9 2 -2 - 16 - 11 -32 - 15 -17 -8 -9 -2 -2 -3 -7 -4 - 17 -7 6 1 -5 - 1 -9 -2 -4 -5 21 15 27 20 6 4 23 I 4 2 -3 16 10 7 9 16 7 13 - 1 6 17 3 9 9 1 18 17 -2 16 14 24 22 10 6 50 7 8 7 3 27 16 13 6 16 14 16 11 13 16 11 10 9 11 19 12 7 $307,131,804 - 6 14 19 Totol _28 centers ......... . . .... . .......... .. ....... Jul y 1969 August 1969 24.6 26 .0 32.8 24.1 20.2 34.1 30.5 23.6 16.8 21. 1 12.2 47.3 26.5 33.3 24.8 37.2 21. 1 30.0 14. 1 13.5 21.3 17.0 26.2 16.9 20.6 23.2 24.2 19.1 26.3 30.7 35.1 25.9 19.9 36.1 37.0 26.5 23.6 24.7 14.6 51.7 31.8 33.3 24.6 36.4 22.3 31.6 17.1 14.7 19.6 16.3 26.9 17.5 21.8 23.0 24.9 20.5 23.5 26.3 27.1 21.5 20.0 35.2 27.1 24.3 16.5 22.2 13.6 45.3 26. 1 33.5 22.0 34.5 20.4 27.5 15.9 13.0 20. 1 16.9 24.1 17.1 21.9 20.6 20.3 19.6 34.5 August 3 1, 1969 36.6 32.4 August $ 217,477 91,615 245,506 36,11 4 99,077 162,847 274,606 242 ,659 65,938 204,170 30,564 2,262,47 1 240,11 9 617,660 104,962 2,498,957 37,746 159,89 1 89,293 135,755 76,396 67,407 592,138 60,426 68,556 93,49 1 11 6,367 11 7,993 ---$9,0 10,62 1 1968 1 Deposi ts of individual s, partnorships, and co rpora tion s and of states and po liti ca l subdi visio ns. !l County basis. GROSS DEMAND AND TIME DEPOSITS Of MEMBER BANKS El even th f ederal Reserv e Di s trict (Ave ra ges of doily figures. In million s of dollars) BUILDING PERMITS = GROSS DEM AND DEPOSITS VALUATION (Dollar amounts in th ousands) Dote Total city bonks Country bonks 1967, August. •.• 1968, August. • •. 1969, March •• ••• April .... .. May .....• 9,178 9,732 10,268 10,497 10,23 1 10,209 10,316 10,250 4,268 4,523 4,76 1 4,693 4,777 4,758 4,763 4,746 4,9 10 5,209 5,467 5,604 5,454 5,451 5,533 5,504 Reserve Percent chang e August 1969 from NU M6 ER - Are a Aug. 1969 8 month s, Aug. 1969 8 mo s. 1969 1969 Jul y 1969 Aug . 1968 1969 from 1968 94 4,294 46,795 -59 127 513 3,368 437 2,190 9,056 25,215 -64 - 18 -63 -37 38 3,75 1 384 250 72 29 1 1,61 3 11 456 456 69 2,060 26 106 25 61 65 50 1,045 62 49 237 67 318 6,740 3,334 1,206 50 1 2,636 15,799 212 3,530 3,942 689 24,206 27 1 870 380 499 662 448 8,432 644 275 1,946 561 285 3,996 6,446 926 706 1,030 29,520 54 4,666 4,1 74 378 34,449 143 1,703 706 640 220 660 5,492 1,109 336 1,441 619 7 ,632 25 ,449 104,556 7,966 6,872 17,053 24 6,029 2,350 63,627 55,953 13,782 289.Q62 2,3 14 20,765 4,1 72 6,53 1 7 ,540 4,45 1 54,807 16,432 4,561 14,408 10,380 12,396 89,1 29 649 5,123 56 419 $ Total city bonks Country bonks 6,394 7,208 7,722 7 ,704 7,676 7,634 7,474 7,353 2,742 3,049 3,042 2,968 2,962 2,925 2,606 2,74 1 3,652 4,159 4,680 4,7 16 4,714 4,709 4,668 4,61 2 Reserve -41 42 June ...... Jul y ....... ARIZONA locson ..••.... B mo S. TIME DEPOSITS August .... LOUISIANA M onroe- W est Monroe ..•• . Shreveport . • . . TEXAS Abilene ....... Ama rillo . ..... Austin ........ Beaumont • . . .. Brown sville .. .. go rp us Christi .. DolI.os .. . ..... Etp~~~: :::::: Fort Worth • . .. ~o l veston •• •• • L Ouston ... ... loredo . . ..... ubbock .•..•. Mid land ..••.. Od essa ....... ~ort Arthur •. .. Son Ang elo . • . Son Antonio ... l' hermon ..... . Wx orkana ... . Wk~~t~' F~il; : : --- Totol_26 cities .• ------$ 106,824 $ 1,067,958 32 0 276 -33 _4 1 -49 _27 24 _10 374 -8 1 -37 2 -15 -74 -92 11 8 - 14 -5 1 29 6 -3 -25 -4 -46 _ 14 - 11 30 106 104 -59 -57 -87 122 167 - 18 -28 260 -79 - 1 -22 0 -54 -39 -37 36 78 24 - 31 83 -45 34 -20 42 -7 65 10 33 - 11 -56 42 84 -36 -37 418 -63 20 20 - 13 13 -27 VALUE Of CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS lin millions of dolla rs ) January-August 1969 Jul y 1969 1969 1969 1966 598 267 193 136 6,523 2,394 2,460 1,669 628 255 210 163 6,166 2,225 2,370 1,574 678 254 236 189 6,255 2,462 2,322 1,471 4,757 1,951 1,547 1,259 46,027 17,602 17,557 10,868 4,444 1,849 1,283 1,313 41,347 16,660 14,631 10,056 August Ar ea and ty pe FIVE SOUT HWESTERN STATES' . .... . .•. ...... • Resi dential building . ... . .. Nonresid ential bull ding . ••• Nonbuildlng construction . .. UNIT ED STATES ...... .. .. .. Re si d ential building . ...... Nonresid ential building .. . . Nonbuilding construction .. . June Arizona, Loui siana, N ew Mexico , O klaho ma, and Te xas. NOTE. Details may no t add to totals because of ro unding . 1 SOURCE , F. W. Dodgo, McGrow· Hill, Inc. DAILY AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (In thousands of barrels) 1969p Area and type of index 1969 Area FOUR SOUTHWESTERN STATES •. .•...•..•...•.• louisiana ............... New Mexico ............. Oklahoma •........•..•. Texas .................. Gulf Coast. ••..•..••.. West Texa s ........... East Texas (properl ••.. • Panhandle ............ Rest of State .......... UNITED STATES .. .. ........ August 1968 July 1969 6,534.1 2,351 .8 353.4 608 .8 3,220.1 647.5 1,515.9 157.7 87.6 811.4 9,310.1 6,406.6 2,275.8 348.6 625.2 3,157.0 644 .1 1,442.6 145.8 92.2 832.3 9,218.1 -0.6 .0 -.6 -.4 -1.1 -.4 -1.2 1.1 -2.5 - 1.8 -.3 1969 August 1968 178.3 201.8 224.5 18 6.7 129.1 261.0 176.9 200.5 222.0 I B6.1 127.3 261.0 175. lr 196.6r 216.7r 183.2r 131.6r 242 .0r 166.2r 186.4r 203.4r 175.0r 126.2 225.0r 174.3 175.5 176.6 171.5 132.4 220.5 174.6 175.5 179.0 171.2 132.B 221.8 173 .8r 174.9r 178.4r 170.6 13 2.2r 21 B.7r 164.6r I 65.7r I 67.8r 163.0r I 29.4r 202.1 June August 1968 TEXAS Total industrial production .... . . Manufacturing . .. .. . . ... . . .. . .. 6,492.6 2,350.9 351.2 606.2 3,184.3 645.0 1,497.6 159.5 85.4 796.8 9,287.5 Jul y 1969 August Percent change from July 1969 August = 100) (Seasonally adjusted indexes, 1957·59 1.3 3.3 .7 -3 .0 .9 .1 3.8 9.4 -7.4 -4 .3 .8 SOURCES: American Petrol e um Institute. Durable .... ................. Nondurable .... . .. .... . .•.... Minin g .. • .. . .. .. ............ . Utilities . ..................... . UNITED STATES Total indust rial production ...... Manufacturing ...... . .... ... ... Durable .... ......... ...... . . Nondurable .... ... . .. ... .. ... Mining ..... ..... ... .... .. ... . Utilities .... . ... ......... ... ... p - Preliminary. Revi sed. U.S. Bureau of Minos. r- Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas . SOURCES: Baord of Gove rnors of th e Federal Reserve System. Federal Rese rve Bank of Dallas. CROP PRODUCTION NONAGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT (In thousands of bushels) TEXAS Five Southwestern States' FIVE SOUTHWESTERN STATES' Percent change 1969, 1969, estimated estimated Crap Sept. 1 1968 1967 Sept. I 1968 1967 Cotton :! ••.....•• Corn ........... 3,425 33,072 69,76B 24,768 2,772 648 23,058 328,640 1,296 3,755 403,200 4,532 750 33,000 3,525 26,052 B4,I50 19,822 3,348 528 27,462 340,780 742 4,587 426,300 4,382 960 69,000 2,767 1B,65B 53,216 6,615 1,350 350 25,400 343,485 150 3,774 333,450 4,329 810 34,000 5,080 42,716 199,938 32,248 30,648 1,688 43,526 393,881 1,296 9,388 649,060 8,353 5,400 87,000 5,244 36,871 218,974 25,450 26,856 1,20B 53,943 402,171 742 10,4 18 671,476 7,654 5,206 97,000 4,000 27,595 150,903 11 ,533 18,007 909 47,435 409,267 ISO 9,565 55B,470 7,692 5,008 111,400 Winter wheat ..•. Rice 3 ••••••••••• Sorghum grain ... flaxse e d ....... Hay· .. ......... Pe onuts 6 •••••••• Irish potatoe so •.. ~:c~~ts~~~~t~~~~.: 1 Arizono, Louisiana, New Me xico, Oklahoma, and Tex as. In thou sands of balos. a In thousand s of bags containing 100 pounds e ach . August 1969p Jul y 1969 6,2 18,800 1,169,900 5,048,900 237,700 412,600 6,210,200 1,164,900 5,045,300 238,100 410,600 5,976,400 1,124,800 4,851,600 235,700 406,800 467,400 1,416,400 3 11,000 978,600 1,2 25,200 466,500 1,41 2,300 310,100 973,800 1,233,900 446,400 1,361,100 294,000 924,800 1,182,800 August Type of e mployment Oats ......... . . Barley .•••....• Rye .......... .. Tota l nonagricultural wag e and salary wo rkers.. Manufacturing ..... • .... . Nonmanufacturing . .... ... Mining ....... .. ..... . Construction ...... . .... Tran sportation and public utilities ........ Trade • .•••••.. ..... •. Financ e ........... .... Service ....... ..... ... Governm ent •.... . .. ... 1 SOURCE: State e mployment age ncies. 4 In thousands of tons . In thousands of pounds. o I n thousand s of hundredweig ht. SOURCE, U.S. De partment of Agriculture. COTTON PRODUCTION Texas Crop Reporting Di stricts (In thousands of bales - 500 pounds gross weight) 1969, 1969 indicated a s percent of Sept. I 1968 1967 196B 9 - Coa stal Prairies. •••..... . .... 10· N - South Texas Plains .•••••..•.. 10-S - lower Rio Grande Valley ••••.. 300 1,440 280 300 20 280 15 40 150 55 40 105 80 20 300 211 1,384 312 372 20 409 19 41 189 72 57 93 79 25 242 258 937 218 234 12 264 19 39 158 23 54 98 117 20 316 142 104 90 81 100 68 79 98 79 76 70 113 101 BO 124 State ..................... . .... 3,425 3,525 2,767 97 Area l -N I -S 2·N 2-S 3 4 - Northern Southern Red Bed Red Bed High Plains ••.•••••.• High Plains • •• .••.••• Plains ••••••• • ..•.•• Plains ••••••••.• • •.• - Western Cross Timbers •..•.... - Black and Grand Prairies .... .. 5-N - East Texas Timbered Plain s ...• 5-S - East Texas Timbered Plains •••• 6 - Trans- Pecos. ..•...... ..... .. 7 - Edwards Plat eau .. •.. .. .. .... 8-N - Southern Texas Prairie s . •..... 8-S - Southern Texa s Prairie s .. . .... SOURCE, U .S. Deportment of Agriculture . 4 1968r Arizona, Loui siana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Tex as. Pre limi nary. Revi se d. p r - !! (j Aug. 1969 Numbe r of persons CROP REPORTING DISTRICTS OF TEXAS fro~ Jul y 1969 Aug. 1968 0.1 .4 -.2 .5 4.1 4.0 4.1 .8 1.4 .2 .3 .3 .5 -.7 4.7 4.1 5.8 5.B 3.6 .i
